Hands-on with the thumb-able iPad mini and the ultrathin iMac

Plenty of photos, including a bonus shot of Tim Cook demoing the iPad mini.

We're sure you're aware of the new iPad mini that Apple introduced in San Jose on Tuesday. The device sports a 7.9" screen and starts at $329 for the 16GB Wi-Fi version—about $129 more than competing 7" Android tablets. Apple claims it didn't want to just shrink down the full-sized iPad, though; instead, it started over and designed a new, smaller iPad from scratch.

Ars went hands-on with the device after Tuesday's event.

Indeed, it's a smaller version of the iPad, but in use, the iPad mini doesn't "seem" significantly smaller. Apple claims you can hold the device with one hand, which may be technically true for some of our larger-handed readers. For me, it was just barely doable, but still possible.

Me typing an e-mail on the iPad mini.

I found it was fairly easy to type on the iPad mini's keyboard in portrait mode by just using my thumbs (and again, I have moderately small hands). Landscape mode was not possible with thumbs, however. For me at least, I'd have to put the device down if I wanted to type on the screen in landscape. But I was impressed by the thumb-ability of the iPad mini in portrait mode, considering the size compared to, say, an iPhone.

An iPad mini being compared against a fourth-generation (full-sized) iPad.

The iPad mini isn't exactly like the full-sized iPad, though. For one, it comes off as a bit thicker. And even though the back of the iPad mini is the same silver/carbon aluminum as that on the back of the iPhone 5, it felt a little plasticky in my hand.

Back of the white iPad mini.

Back of the black iPad mini.

The slight increase in thickness combined with the new back made it feel a little cheaper than my third-gen iPad, but not as cheap as some other 7-inch tablets I've handled.

An angle shot of the iPad mini.

Although the device does not sport a "retina" class display like its full-sized brother, the difference didn't seem to bother most of the people in the briefing area. Considering the price tag of $329, adding a retina display would have made the iPad mini prohibitively expensive compared to the competition (it's already walking that line as it is!).

Apple CEO Tim Cook also stopped into the briefing room (along with Scott Forstall) to check out people's reactions to the iPad mini. Cook demoed the device to a small group of us in the back before saying hi to several of us (myself included) and moving over to the iMac area.

Tim Cook demoing the white iPad mini.

Speaking of iMacs...

We also got a glimpse at the new, ultrathin iMacs introduced on Tuesday. They indeed make current iMacs look like giant bricks by comparison.

The 21.5" iMac.

21.5" iMac from the side/back.

As a current iMac owner, I did feel like the screen seemed less reflective than what I'm used to, although real world use would tell us more about the reality of that claim. Overall I was impressed by the design and wish I had the budget to replace my current machine.

The iPad mini (Wi-Fi version) ships on November 2, while the new iMac (as well as the new Mac mini) ships in November. The new 13" Retina MacBook Pro ships today. Keep up with Ars in the coming weeks for full reviews on many of the devices announced today.

Jacqui Cheng
Jacqui is an Editor at Large at Ars Technica, where she has spent the last eight years writing about Apple culture, gadgets, social networking, privacy, and more. Emailjacqui@arstechnica.com//Twitter@eJacqui

143 Reader Comments

Hands-on photos make a huge difference, especially with the iMac, Apple chose their angles very carefully with all the official shots on their site. They'd love for you to think the iMac is that thin all the way across.

A user in the MacAch commented that the new iMac + stand is the same 8" depth as the previous-generation iMac. So the engineering/manufacturing changes to allow the thinner iMac body only nets a cosmetic "benefit." Had they at least compressed the machine-and-stand profile, I could see some benefit for people with small workspaces.

So yeah: While I appreciate the move to Ivy Bridge and some of the other technical improvements in this version, I may be trolling Apple's refurb selection for a previous-gen iMac to replace my 2009 model rather than springing for this new shiny.

A user in the MacAch commented that the new iMac + stand is the same 8" depth as the previous-generation iMac. So the engineering/manufacturing changes to allow the thinner iMac body only nets a cosmetic benefit. Had they at least compressed the machine-and-stand profile, I could see some benefit for people with small workspaces.

So yeah: While I appreciate the move to Ivy Bridge and some of the other technical improvements in this version, I may be trolling Apple's refurb selection for a previous-gen iMac to replace my 2009 model rather than springing for this new shiny.

So if it is the same depth, am I correct to say you are trading nothing at all for the cost of user accessible ram?

So if it is the same depth, am I correct to say you are trading nothing at all for the cost of user accessible ram?

Indications are that the 21.5" model sacrifices user-upgradable RAM, yes. The 27" model is still described as having "four user-accessible RAM slots."

And no, that doesn't seem like a worthwhile tradeoff to me either. At least in a laptop, there is a material benefit to extreme thin-ness causing technical tradeoffs. I may be an Apple Fan, but I'm not seeing the wisdom in this move.

A user in the MacAch commented that the new iMac + stand is the same 8" depth as the previous-generation iMac. So the engineering/manufacturing changes to allow the thinner iMac body only nets a cosmetic benefit. Had they at least compressed the machine-and-stand profile, I could see some benefit for people with small workspaces.

So yeah: While I appreciate the move to Ivy Bridge and some of the other technical improvements in this version, I may be trolling Apple's refurb selection for a previous-gen iMac to replace my 2009 model rather than springing for this new shiny.

So if it is the same depth, am I correct to say you are trading nothing at all for the cost of user accessible ram?

You're trading 8 pounds of weight - which may or may not matter to you.

Indications are that the 21.5" model sacrifices user-upgradable RAM, yes. The 27" model is still described as having "four user-accessible RAM slots."

And no, that doesn't seem like a worthwhile tradeoff to me either. At least in a laptop, there is a material benefit to extreme thin-ness causing technical tradeoffs. I may be an Apple Fan, but I'm not seeing the wisdom in this move.

That's what I thought. That is really no benefit at all then, assuming you wanted the smaller one. I hate the fact that they are making things so difficult to upgrade now. Between the ram here and on the ram and hard drives on the new retina mbps it seems like the long-term solution is to remove all easy upgrades.

A user in the MacAch commented that the new iMac + stand is the same 8" depth as the previous-generation iMac. So the engineering/manufacturing changes to allow the thinner iMac body only nets a cosmetic "benefit." Had they at least compressed the machine-and-stand profile, I could see some benefit for people with small workspaces.

I would think there's an absolute minimum amount of depth necessary on the base to ensure stability for the screen/computer part to be moved on its hinge. I do agree that it's a cheat the way they've done it and I didn't particularly mind the thickness of the iMac before (as I look over at my wife's 2008 24" iMac).

Real question for me is how easy is it to upgrade the parts myself on the new iMac... would like to add my own memory and SSD so I don't get taken by Apple's upgrade pricing! (unless that is *gasp* reasonable... even then...)

A user in the MacAch commented that the new iMac + stand is the same 8" depth as the previous-generation iMac. So the engineering/manufacturing changes to allow the thinner iMac body only nets a cosmetic "benefit." Had they at least compressed the machine-and-stand profile, I could see some benefit for people with small workspaces.

I would think there's an absolute minimum amount of depth necessary on the base to ensure stability for the screen/computer part to be moved on its hinge. I do agree that it's a cheat the way they've done it and I didn't particularly mind the thickness of the iMac before (as I look over at my wife's 2008 24" iMac).

Neither did I, but looking at it now...

They decided to ditch the optical drive - something I already did on mine - and that meant that there was no reason to be any thicker than it is right now. They still have space and cooling for Intel's best desktop CPU, nVidia's best mobile graphics (both on BTO), 4 DIMM slots and a 3.5" HDD. I don't need more than that.

Hands-on photos make a huge difference, especially with the iMac, Apple chose their angles very carefully with all the official shots on their site. They'd love for you to think the iMac is that thin all the way across.

The genius of Apple has always been that they are firmly planted at the intersection of technology and fashion. That new iMac may have a bump that's just as thick as the current iMac, and is probably a bitch to upgrade, but it's still sexy as hell.

The white iPad mini is my favorite. Perfect size to get integrated into a car too.

iOS would make for quite the distracting in car system. There are launcher replacements on Android specifically designed for in car use (small number of big icons and high readability).

You're confused about what iOS entails.

What you're talking about the springboard app that runs on top of iOS. (the grid of icons on the home screen) For car use, it is likely that iOS would boot straight into a different custom app and users would never see the familiar springboard/homescreen.

The current springboard is indeed badly suited for car use. Constant mode switching and static icons to launch apps is not a good fit. Thankfully, springboard has almost nothing to do with iOS. Replacing it with a different app is beyond trivial.

Wait! What? $349 for old tech and only 16G, wow seriously Apple thinks that customers are that stupid. What is this world coming to? Well time to stick with a Nexus device or a Kindle at these prices I don't care what you think an Apple device gives you for status next to your peers, purchase this and you will be a total idiot in my book. Bah hah hah.

I've seen this comment a lot, but it doesn't account for the front-facing and significantly higher-quality (compared to the front-facing one on the Nexus) camera and general build quality (aluminum case, etc.).

I know I'm a dinosaur but was surprised that they didn't include Firewire on the new iMacs. It's in the new Mac Mini for gosh sake but no room for it in the iMac? USB3 should be a decent replacement for it so I understand, but I'm still sad to see it go.

I wonder if this is going to factor into the quantity of Apple sales longer term. If Apple keep premium prices (even if their products are arguably superior) I wonder how long they will keep their current customers.

Then again if they keep making more product categories and getting new customers especially in new countries then maybe that will make up for any potential drop dropping repeat sales in the developed world.